Loading...
08/01/1989 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1989 - 1:30 PM Members Present: Chairman Johnson, Ms. Nixon, Messrs. Ferrell, Green, and Schwob ALSO PRESENT: M. A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney Members Absent: Messrs. Hamilton and Mazur A. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to approve the minutes of the June 27, 1989 meeting as corrected. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). Chairman Johnson outlined the procedures for conditional uses and advised that anyone adversely affected by a decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, with regard to conditional uses, has two weeks from this date in which to file an appeal through the City Clerk's Office. Florida Law requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal. ITEMS ARE LISTED IN AGENDA ORDER THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY DISCUSSED IN THAT ORDER. B. Conditional Uses:  1. Lots 1 through 10, Blk., Bayside Shores (735 Bayway Drive) William and Donna Kebort (Sharky's)/Sharky's of Clearwater, Inc./Michael W. Hamilton CU 89-52 Request - 4-COP-SRX (On Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CB (Beach Commercial) Mr. Richter explained the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation, which recommendation was to deny the above request based on incompatibility with the neighboring residential uses. Mr. Richter submitted an additional memorandum to the Board which indicated the City Attorney had concerns with staff recommendation. Mr. Richter requested the Board inquire about specifics of the proposed operation and advised, should the Board approve the above request, it condition the approval upon the following conditions: 1)The business close at midnight; 2) The kitchen remain open to within one (1) hour of closing; 3) The approval be limited to a trial period of one (1) year from the date of issuance of the Occupational License; and 4) The Occupational License be procured with six (6) months of this date. Mr. Richter advised the following correspondence was received: A letter from a resident who requested approval be conditioned upon a midnight closing and a six-month trial period; a letter from a resident who requested denial of the request; and a petition from the residents of Bayway Boulevard (see attached petition). Atty. Steve Seibert, representative of applicant, stated applicant proposes a Bennigan's- or T.G.I.F.-type restaurant and lounge. He also stated pre-recorded music or acoustical guitar is intended, all music will take place in doors, and there will be no outside speakers. Atty. Seibert submitted a mock-up of the menu (see attached). He stated this request is for a change of business ownership and the principle owner in the corporation, Mr. Michael Hamilton, has been active in the restaurant business for 13 years. He also stated this is not a side business and applicant is willing to make some commitments. He advised applicant is providing the following: Two (2) full-time security guards outside to insure noise and parking are controlled, as well as any necessary security inside the establishment; extensive renovation is being done, including soundproofing, particularly on the side facing the residential uses; and, the sound system will be locked in at a level of comfort determined by police. Atty. Seibert stated applicant will comply with all Code requirements and applicant is agreeable to a probationary period because he is comfortable with the proposed operation. He requested a closing time limit of 1:00 AM because applicant wants to serve food late at night. He stated the use is appropriate for the zoning and a restaurant lounge is the current use. Atty. Seibert felt the past history of the establishment should not reflect on a new owner. He also felt the new owner should be judged on his merits and to do otherwise would not be fair to the applicant. He showed a proposed floor plan of the establishment. He advised the state requires some food be sold while liquor is served. He also advised the targeted clientele will be anyone on Clearwater Beach. In opposition to the above request, the following persons appeared to give their comments: Ms. Betty Thomas, 830 South Gulfview Boulevard, expressed concern that another Dock-of-the-Bay type establishment is being considered and she remembers late night noises, fights, and cruising vehicles. She stated applicant cannot control people when they leave the establishment, and she felt there are enough alcoholic beverage establishments on the beach. Mr. George Fathauer, 830 South Gulfview Boulevard, expressed concern about parking on the streets. He stated he counted only 84 parking spaces for the entire shopping center while the application for the above request stated there were 100 parking spaces available. Mr. Herbert W. Leonhardt, 706 Bayway Boulevard, expressed concern about parking and glare of lights. He stated other establishments in the shopping center also sell alcoholic beverages. He also stated the area has had peace and quiet for the past three months since the establishment has been closed. Mr. John DiNatale, 830 South Gulfview Boulevard, stated there is no work going at the establishment and he has been unable to contact anyone at the establishment. He stated the ceilings have been removed and a long bar has been constructed in the establishment. He felt the people living within 200 feet should not be subjected to the noise and felt the police substation will not help. Ms. Marian DiNatale, 830 South Gulfview Boulevard, questioned the competence of applicant based on the fact that all work has been done before approval. She felt the bar is very long and maintaining 51% in food sales will require a lot of tables. She also felt two security guards are not impressive. Ms. Mary Parker, 716 Bayway, stated she lives across the street from the establishment. She expressed concern about lights from vehicles. She stated the police spend most of their time at the establishment. She expressed concern that the Code is not being obeyed in regard to noise. Mr. Scott Reed, 692 Bayway Boulevard, stated the question regarding targeted clientele was crossed over by the applicant and expressed concern about the type of clientele that will visit the establishment. Mr. Green asked the applicant, in its rebuttal, to specifically address the issue of the long bar and dancing as well as the issue of targeted clientele. He felt, though applicant stated the previous reputation should not be compared, the strongest issue applicant has going for it is the fact that it is taking the business over from someone else. Atty. Seibert stated there will be a larger bar. He stated applicant has found people do a fair amount of eating at the bar. He advised the establishment will provide full-service food at the bar as well as drinking. He also advised the dance floor will be 12 feet by 18 feet. Atty. Seibert stated the targeted clientele issue is difficult to answer. He stated applicant is looking for a 25- to 60-year-old clientele but there is no intention of a young college- or student-type bar. He also stated music will be 60s to 80s canned music. He advised applicant would like to see many senior citizens at the establishment but it is difficult to realistically answer exactly what type of clientele will frequent the establishment. After questioning by Board members, Atty. Seibert advised as follows: Applicant plans 152 seats at tables and 45 seating places at the bar, but seating would be limited to what is allowed by the fire marshal; the bar itself is being enlarged but no additional square footage is being used; there will be no exotic dancing; and two security guards outside should be substantial. Atty. Seibert added that patrons revving their car engines will be stopped. He stated there is a tremendous amount of traffic in the area and it is difficult to attribute noise to the establishment. He added that car noise at the establishment will be policed as best as possible. In final rebuttal, Atty. Seibert stated applicant believes that selling alcoholic beverages in a lounge/restaurant/bar on Beach Commercial property is a reasonable request. He felt the change in ownership and operation can be effectively done. Mr. Johnson stated a difficult decision must be made and the real issue is the change of business ownership. Ms. Nixon felt the request is more than a change of business ownership and the request is also regarding the type of establishment being proposed. She stated the only time calm was felt by the residents was when the establishment was a restaurant-type establishment. She felt this is not based on management of the operation but on the type of operation that is being proposed. She stated that, with the entertainment, hours of operation, and noise she would not vote in favor of the request. She stated her decision is based on Sections 136.025(b)(3), (4), and (7) and 137.011(d) of the Land Development Code in that this type of operation will not be compatible with the area. Mr. Schwob agreed and felt a family-type, SRX restaurant would be appropriate. He felt the type of operation would not be compatible. Mr. Green felt approval of the request with a midnight closing would be appropriate. Mr. Ferrell felt the new owner should be given the benefit of the doubt and felt the applicant has agreed to comply with certain conditions. He felt a six-month probation was more appropriate than a one-year probation. Ms. Nixon expressed concern that a six-month probation is too short. Ms. Nixon felt the residents have suffered enough and only a family-type operation should be approved. Mr. Schwob stated he would agree to approval with a midnight closing. Mr. Johnson stated he visited the site and was told by applicant that the primary goal is a family-type restaurant. He felt applicant is trying to make the place better than it was and should be given a chance. He would agree to approval with a midnight closing and review in six (6) months. Motion was made by Mr. Ferrell, seconded by Mr. Green, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That the business close at 12:00 midnight; 2) That there be a trial period of six (6) months from date of issuance of the Occupational License; 3) That the kitchen remain open to within one (1) hour of closing; 4) That the Occupational License be procured within six (6) months; 5) That two (2) security guards be on duty outside the premises; and 6) That there be no outside speakers. Motion carried (4 to 1) with Ms. Nixon voting "nay". Ms. Nixon stated she based her decision on her feeling the establishment should not be there at all. 2. M&B 32.03, Sec. 18-29S-16E (2257 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard) Belcher and Gulf to Bay, Inc. (The Fraternity House Restaurant)/Beaver Corp./William Barber CU 89-53 Request - 4-COP-SRX (On Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CG (General Commercial) Mr. Richter explained the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Richter advised that the suggested condition, that the "portable sign be removed," need not be included since the portable sign has been removed . Discussion followed regarding compliance with sign regulations and compliance with open space requirements. Mr. Andrew Friedman, owner/operator of the establishment, explained there are 52 parking spaces around the building and 100 next door at the shopping center which are leased. He also explained that, in regard to the bottom half of the sign, an application was submitted but he recalls no time limit. He stated he is asking for an SRX license to enhance the business and expand the clientele. He also stated his food/alcoholic beverage sales currently are 60%/40% and he understands he must maintain 51%/49% in food/alcoholic beverage sales if his SRX license is approved. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Friedman advised as follows: He maintains a full, well-rounded menu that includes nine (9) entres'; hours of operation are from 11:30 AM to 12:00 midnight during the week and 11:30 AM to 1:00 AM on weekends; the kitchen is open full time; and, the same hours of operation will be followed if the above request is approved. In opposition to the above request, the following person appeared to give his comments: Mr. Ralph Englert, partner in Happy Trails Mobile Home Park, stated he cannot understand how an illegal sign can remain in place for such a long time. Mr. Englert read in to the record a petition with 77 signatures of residents of the mobile home park (see attached petition). He advised he receives numerous complaints from the residents of the mobile home park regarding noise, public urination, and rowdiness from patrons. Mr. Johnson advised when the subject establishment originally came before the Board no persons appeared in opposition to the request. In rebuttal, Mr. Friedman stated he understands the opposition and there have been some unfortunate situations in the past. He advised his establishment is frequently filled with people and it took awhile and a lot of hard work to get people to understand the establishment is not a bar but an eating place. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Friedman advised as follows: There is some pumped-in music but no live entertainment; the former manager of the mobile home park approached Mr. Friedman regarding confusion about access to the establishment and the mobile home park, which confusion was alleviated by installing entrance/exit signs; every effort is given to avoid problems; identification is requested at the tables, not at the door, because the establishment is not a bar; and, there are usually one male and one female at the door who act as host and hostess and also keep an eye on the parking lot. Mr. Green stated there is a young, professional crowd at lunch but stated there is a somewhat younger crowd at night. After questioning by Mr. Green, Mr. Friedman stated it is difficult to say what effect a license designation change will have but it is management's responsibility not to let drinking get out of hand. He felt about 80% of the clientele purchases food. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Friedman advised as follows: There is a 12-seat bar and total seating is 150; the menu is changing and more entres' will be offered; and, there are usually 2 or 3 hosts/hostesses at the door to police the parking lot. Ms. Nixon stated the establishment is already serving alcoholic beverages but the SRX license will require food sales. Mr. Schwob felt the SRX license may help some problems in the mobile home park to diminish. He expressed concern about the problems but felt denying the request will not solve the problems. He felt the complaints should be addressed to the police anytime there is a problem. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Ms. Nixon, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That the lower portion of the sign be removed; 2) That the property be brought into conformance with open space requirements of the Land Development Code prior to conditional use becoming effective; and 3) That the alcoholic beverage license be obtained within six (6) months. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 3. South 15 feet of Lot 9 and all of Lots 10, 11 and 12, Blk. C, Replat of Blk. A of Clearwater Beach Park 1st Addition (443 East Shore Drive) Dean Patapis/Randy Milne CU 89-54 Request - Marina (13 Slips) Zoned - CB (Beach Commercial) AND AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coastal) Mr. Hilton explained the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Randy Milne, representative of owner, stated 13 slips are requested because the two property owners also have boats. He also stated no marina is intended, there will be no pump out facility or fueling facility. He stated all State permits have been obtained. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Mr. Milne advised as follows: He thinks there are two parking spaces for each unit; clientele is more of seasonal rentals; the dock will be a total of 118 feet; and the length of docks in the area varies. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Hilton advised as follows: Staff contacted property owner who advised there are 11 units at the subject site; staff felt rental of slips may lead to control problems with liveaboards and fueling; and, after inspection of the site, it appeared parking spaces were not marked. Discussion followed regarding parking spaces required for rental of boat slips. Mr. Ferrell noted the Traffic Engineer had no comments regarding the subject request and he felt the Traffic Engineer would have made comments if parking was inadequate. Mr. Milne clarified that many of the motel units have garages and the parking spaces are unmarked. Motion was made by Mr. Ferrell, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That the number of slips be limited to thirteen (13) slips; 2) That no liveaboards be allowed without specific authorization of the Planning and Zoning Board; 3) That no slips be rented or leased without specific authorization of the Planning and Zoning Board; and, 4) That a Building Permit be obtained within six (6) months. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 4. Lots 12, 13, & 14, and 150 foot portion of south 5 feet of 10-foot wide alley on north and south 67.50 feet of Lots 10 and 11, Blk. 12, Pine Crest, Marshall & Brandon Sub. (600 North Greenwood Avenue) Speros & Joan Frangedis/Michael Frangedis CU 89-55 Request - Vehicle Service (Body Shop) Zoned - IL (Limited Industrial) Mr. Richter explained the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Michael Frangedis, son of property owner, advised the building was previously used for insulation and he wants to change the use to a body shop. He advised some vehicles were stored outside. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Mr. Frangedis advised there isn't much room inside for storage of vehicles, there is no other use for parking outside, and the subject request involves only Suite A at the addressed property. After questioning by Mr. Ferrell, Mr. Richter stated the suggested condition relating to storing vehicles inside was made for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Frangedis expressed some concern about the condition of the adjacent property. Discussion followed regarding whether fencing can be required at an address when the property owner isn't present. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Frangedis stated all work is done inside and vehicles parked outside are waiting to be maintained. No persons appeared in support or in opposition to the above request. Mr. Schwob felt the standard procedure for such a use was to store vehicles outside and felt there was no reason to change that procedure. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Ferrell, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That all tires, parts, and similar objects be stored indoors; 2) That hours of business be limited to 8:00AM through 6:00PM, Monday through Saturday; and 3) That the Occupational License be obtained within six (6) months. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 5. M&B 23.18, Sec. 18-29S-16E (2284 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard) Mitchell Singer (Unique Restaurant)/Joel Parker CU 89-56 Request - 4-COP-SRX (On Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CG (General Commercial) Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Joseph L. Parker, representative of applicant, stated applicant is requesting approval of expansion of the current use. He also stated applicant plans a Key West style decor and access will only be through the restaurant. He further stated applicant agrees to all conditions. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Parker advised as follows: There will be no live entertainment or dancing; alcoholic beverages will be sold on the deck; and, there will be no loud speakers on the deck. Ms. Nixon felt no television should be allowed on deck. In support of the above request Russell Latimer clarified that the building will be upgraded and he felt the Key West decor of the deck under the large Oak tree will enhance the operation. Mr. Richter advised one letter of objection was received from the property owner at 2260 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Ferrell,to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That a six-foot, opaque fence be provided along the west property line to buffer the parking lot from the neighboring property prior to final inspection of the deck; 2) That a solid landscape buffer be provided along the north property line prior to final inspection of the deck; 3) That the freestanding wooden sign in the southeast corner of the property be removed prior to final inspection of the deck; 4) That no speakers, television, or announcing speakers be allowed on the deck; and 5) That the Building Permit be obtained within six (6) months. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 6. M&B 14.03, Sec. 17-29S-16E (2898 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard) David & Maude Thompson/Daniel Norris CU 89-57 Request - Outdoor Retail Sales, Displays and/or Storage (Automobile Rental/Sales) Zoned - CG (General Commercial) Mr. Richter explained the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Daniel Norris, representative of applicant, clarified the lighting is directed downward and not toward the mobile home park. He advised signatures of approval from mobile home park residents were solicited (see attached). Michael D. Thompson, property owner, appeared to answer any questions the Board may have. No persons appeared in support or in opposition to the above request. Discussion followed regarding number of parking spaces, and the Board felt it should be able to consider the parking for the use. Mr. Richter advised there is nothing in the Code regarding changing the parking lot for a use change. Mr. Ferrell felt re-orientation of the parking could satisfy both the landscaping and parking requirements. Motion was made by Ms. Nixon to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That a five-foot landscape buffer be provided along the south property line; 2) That the Occupational License be obtained within six (6) months; and 3) That no loudspeakers be used in conjunction to the use. Mr. Norris felt the condition regarding loudspeakers should not be included as it is necessary to page salesmen on the lot. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Norris stated weekday hours will be from 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Saturday hours will be from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM, and Sunday hours will be from 12:00 noon to 6:00 PM. Mr. Ferrell felt allowing the paging system is a reasonable request. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Ferrell, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That a five-foot landscape buffer be provided along the south property line; and 2) That the Occupational License be obtained within six (6) months. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 7. Dolphin Apartments Condo (210 Dolphin Point) Dolphin Apartments Condo, Inc./Ress Marine CU 89-58 Request - Marina (Noncommercial) Zoned - RM-20 (Multiple Family Residential "Twenty") AND AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coastal) Mr. Hilton gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Ms. Else Nichols, requested approval to build a dock at the above property. After questioning by Mr. Johnson, Ms. Nichols stated she is requesting one (1) slip. In opposition to the above request, the following person appeared to give his comments. Atty. Tom Nash, representative of Louise Atkinson, resident of Dolphin Apartments Condo, advised an additional dock will adversely affect Ms. Atkinson's use of her property, specifically her view and her privacy. He stated there is an existing dock with two (2) slips to which the additional slip should be added. He expressed concern about increased boat traffic and congestion in the area. After questioning by Mr. Ferrell, Atty. Nash advised Ms. Atkinson lives in the same building, in an upstairs unit, and the dock would be in front of the balcony. In rebuttal, Ms. Nichols stated the condominiums are located in a marine environment. She stated the Harbormaster advised her that, if another slip is added to the existing dock, existing dock may extend far enough to hamper navigation. After questioning by Board members, Ms. Nicols advised the existing dock has been in place since 1983, Mr. Doherty of City staff suggested the application be in the condominium name, and Ms. Nichols will pay for and be the sole user of the dock. Ms. Nixon expressed concern if the dock is placed in the middle of the property it may encroach on the dock on the east side of the property. Mr. Ferrell agreed and felt the dock should be as remote as possible. Mr. Green felt he cannot be in support of the request when the person most affected is in opposition. Mr. Ferrell felt seeing a mast is part of living on the water. Motion was made by Mr. Ferrell, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That no liveaboards be allowed without the specific authorization of the Planning and Zoning Board; 2) That no slips be rented or leased without the specific authorization of the Planning and Zoning Board; and 3) That the Building permit be obtained within six (6) months. Motion carried (3 to 2) with Messrs. Green and Johnson voting "nay". C. Annexation and Zoning: 1. M&B 14.07, Sec. 12-29S-15E (Located on the north side of Palmetto Street approximately 250 feet east of Kapp Drive) (Garretson) A 89-14 Request - Annexation and Zoning, IL (Limited Industrial) The above property is located on the north side of Palmetto Street approximately 250 feet east of Kapp Drive. Mr. Kenneth Vogel, representative of applicant, stated the applicant wishes to annex to receive City water and sewer. He advised he has already met with Public Works Department to work out arrangements for water and sewer lines. Mr. Hilton explained the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to recommend approval of the annexation and IL (Limited Industrial) zoning. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). F. Board and Staff Comments There was a discussion about the possibility of using videos for those items heard before the Planning and Zoning Board. The Board felt, though the members usually inspect sites the videos may be helpful in some cases. There was further discussion regarding the Board's action in approving changes to the Planning and Zoning rules and Regulations. Since there may have been some confusion at the meeting of July 18, 1989 regarding proposed changes to the Rules and Regulations, the Board requested the Rules and Regulations, with suggested changes, be presented at a future meeting. Meeting adjourned at 4:40 PM. James M. Polatty, Jr., AICP Secretary Planning and Development Department